A different reason to hate the new 3rd deck ban...

by nodaclu on Nov 8, 2005 12:57 PM PST Comment 26 comments

I actually think it's an absolutely brilliant idea from a marketing standpoint, and I believe they will NOT open the 3rd deck even for Yankees/Red Sox/Giants games.

They want to create scarcity. When was the last time you COULD NOT get a ticket to an A's regular season game?

Answer? Pretty much NEVER.

Wolffe wants A's fans to understand what fans in many other markets have known for years - if you wanna see the team, you gots to pay the price. Or be shut out entirely.

It sucks from a fan standpoint, but it makes perfect business sense.

But there is another huge problem for me. One I haven't seen mentioned yet. And it's for this reason that I may never attend another A's game at the Coliseum now.

I've gone to games over the years with 45,000 in attendance, and with 862 in attendance (that wonderful 1979 season).

I've seen the concourse areas with both levels of traffic inside, and everything in between.

The early 1960's design of the Coliseum means that the walkways are dark, narrow, and enclosed. It simply isn't suitable (or safe for that matter) to have the concourse area packed with people for 81 games each year.

When the Coliseum is packed, restrooms are unusable, the ability to move about to get something to eat takes upwards of 2-3 full innings, and most importantly, I've had 2 attempts of a pick-pocket on my wallet, and my wife has been touched inappropriately in the crush of humanity on one occasion.

I went to Petco Park in August, and I was blown away with how differently the concourse areas are set up in the newer parks.

I have no doubt that 38K in a new, modern, bright and airy stadium would present no problems to my enjoyment of the game, and the safety of my family.

But as long as the A's are in the Coliseum and keep the 3rd deck ban in place, the only games I would even consider will be the cold, dreary Tuesday nights when the Royals/Devil Rays are in town.

At least then I'll know that I can go to the ballpark, relax, and enjoy myself - knowing my family is fairly safe, and I can get a hot dog in just a half-inning. ;)

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Excellent points...

Crowds will be bad as everyone will be on the same level.

Bring back Hammer.

by OaktownPower on Nov 8, 2005 1:11 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

a bit exaggerated

i'm not a fan of the 3rd deck closure for the up coming season, but not for safety reasons. i'm sure that there are bad experiences at times when the games are crowded, but i've been to my share of crowded games as well; sitting in every possible location (mt. davis, bleachers, all around the 3rd deck, all around the 2nd deck, all around the 1st deck....never diamond level though), and over the course of the last 20 years. in all this time, attending games as a child, with friends, with family, while watching over young children; i've never had a real safety concern that i couldn't have avoided. this includes games when the opposing team's fans are in full force, and games when we're eliminated from contention against our rivals.
i'll grant it that the time it takes to get a dog during the game, and maneuver around the popular vending stations during games with big crowds are quite annoying. but i've managed to alleviate those issues to a satisfactory level through experience.

by F171615 on Nov 8, 2005 1:28 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I actually love the Net when it's crowded

I don't fear crowds of baseball fans and have never had a reason to fear them at the 'Net.

but hey, that's me...

by OaklandSi on Nov 8, 2005 2:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

scarcity might attract some fans,

I just don't know. But this fan is definitely not going to be attracted to a more crowded, more expensive, and more unused stadium.

Unless I somehow get rich in the offseason, I'll probably be going to fewer games next season than the 15 I went to in 05.

Thanks a lot Big Bad. You suck.

by As Man on Nov 8, 2005 4:17 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

But tickets aren't more expensive ...

Check out some awesome music ...

by devo on Nov 8, 2005 4:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

oh really?

View level always seemed the cheapest besides bleachers. I have AAA so I get view level for $6. Then there's $2 Wednesdays which were for view level only.

I'm not a bleacher guy, and if I'm correct view level was second cheapest???

<don't understand>

by As Man on Nov 8, 2005 8:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

What Is It That Everyone Wants?

You want it the way it's been? That's not going to work. the line from above "this fan is definitely not going to be attracted to a more crowded, more expensive, and more unused stadium."

The unused part is a product of a football stadium being used for baseball. it's too many seats for most teams in MLB.

The part that gets me is "But this fan is definitely not going to be attracted to a more crowded, more expensive stadium."

More crowded? Ummm. THAT'S what the stadium should be! Crowded. Packed with people. Sold out. See the ballparks of successful teams around the league. there isn't room to put your feet up and spread out. It's sold out and all the seats are filled.

More expensive? That remains to be seen but if spending a few more bucks means keeping the teams intact then I'm afraid that's what we're all going to have to do. or would you rather watch all the games for free on TV as the A's play in their new ballpark...in Portland.

I see way too much whining from AN since this news broke. I think a number of A's fans need to grow up and join the big leagues.

~This is a simple game...You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball. YOU GOT IT!?!

by BornInOakland on Nov 8, 2005 4:48 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

are you a fan?

or are you working for the A's?

Who cares if the A's get rich on the backs of the fans? If I'm to "join the big leagues" does that mean I have to tithe my income to the Oakland Athletics, a for profit corporation, as if it's the Catholic church?!?

Buddy, I'm just giving my opinion. Yes, I'm an A's fan but it's not a friggin charity. There's no reason for me to line the pockets of Wolff or Fisher or Beane or whoever.

Sorry I'm not licking Wolff's balls for his brilliant business plan that lessens my ballpark experience.

by As Man on Nov 8, 2005 8:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Uhhh

Who cares if the A's get rich on the backs of the fans?

I care, because if the A's get rich, they will be able to keep and sign better players, which would lead to better chances of us winning it all. I'm sorry, but as great as the "ballpark" experience is, I root for the A's to WIN, not for them to do so-so.

There seems to be the misconception that any increase in revenue is going to the A's owners' pockets, but why don't these people understand that in order for the team to spend more, it needs to make more money!?

BTW, "joining the big leagues" means generating even 1/4th of the revenue that the Giants, Dodgers, Angels, Yankees, Red Sox, Mariners, Cardinals, etc. generate.

by OaktownTribesman on Nov 9, 2005 6:23 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Dude

You're obviously a very accomplished businessman, so I probably shouldn't respond. But I'm a hardhead and I will anyway.

I don't know how many games you go to since you live on the East Coast. Maybe that's why you put "ballpark" experience in quotes, since it's just an abstract principle to you. But for people that actually go to games, it's pretty important. Maybe you'll just have to take my word for it.

Donald Fisher, John Fisher's father, is worth $2.1 billion. And he's already given some of his money to his children. That's still good enough to be in the top 350 richest non-governmental people in the world. You think he can't afford to sign Brian Giles?!

You refer to the Yankees as an example of a smart business minded team. But did you know that Steinbrenner borrows against the franchise every year? He's an example of someone who spends more than he takes in. And I have no idea where you got the 1/4th revenue idea... Forbes has us at least half of any other team besides the Yankees. Oh, and by the way, the Yankees ownership had operating losses of $37 million. The A's ownership earned $6 mil.

Look, the ownership is going to look out for itself. What's wrong with me, a fan, expressing my opinion on the closing of the third deck? That's right, nothing.

by As Man on Nov 9, 2005 9:09 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It's not the same thing

Profit is NOT the same thing as revenue in MLB. Yes we all agree that the A's ownership was making a profit, howvever, that's only because of the current revenue sharing agreement. Basically, the A's generate very little revenue, the Yanks generate a ton of revenue, and the other 28 teams somewhere in between, and they put a portion of their revenue all in one hat. Then, the A's get to take out more than they put in (because their revenue was below average), while the Yanks get less than what they put in (because their revenue was monstrous), and so on. Bottome line is, the A's are generating very little revenue, but thanks to the owners' taking advantage of the revenue sharing system, they never lose money. If you think about it, Schott and Hoffmann were actually lining their pockets with Yankee and Red Sox fans' money!

And even when a team loses money, it's written off as "debt". I'm pretty sure the owner gets a way out of that debt eventually when he sells the team, and thus he's never actually shelling out money to cover those losses year in year out.

by OaktownTribesman on Nov 9, 2005 7:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

OK

I know the difference between profit and revenue. But look at Forbes and I think our revenue was $116 for 05, better than about 8 teams. Keep in mind every team in MLB is in on revenue sharing. Yankees revenue was approx. $250. Red Sox was only about $200.

But during the Schott/Hoffman years, they always made a profit. AND they made a ton of money when they sold the team. Let's say they owned the team for 10 years, made $5 mil a year, and sold the team at the end for $50 mil more than they bought it for. So they made $100 mil in 10 years. Not bad. Meanwhile they have Billy Beane telling everybody all the time they are in a small market and can't afford to keep their players.

What you have to keep in mind with this revenue sharing thing is that MLB is an interconnected business. MLB itself is a brand, product and license that transcends individual teams. It's the freaking national pastime, for crying out loud. How much revenue would the Yankees generate if they played with themselves all season? And these days especially, the business of baseball is very profitable.

Anyway, that's my two cents. I just think some people on AN get a little overzealous with A's fervor and get to believing they and management both have the best in mind for A's legacy. Instead, IMHO owners generally view baseball as a vehicle for making money.

And that's fine. I'm a capitalist. Just don't tell me I can't decide whether or not to fork over my hard earned money to sit in the taxpayer funded Coliseum.

by As Man on Nov 9, 2005 8:58 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Instant Internet Billionaires

"How much revenue would the Yankees generate if they played with themselves all season?"

Beat the Angles (they're obtuse!)

by FreeSeatUpgrade on Nov 9, 2005 10:15 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Well

I believe these are the numbers you are talking about.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=33&passYear=2005&passListType=Misc& searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsStart=1&resultsHowMany=30&resul tsSortProperties=-numberfield5%2C%2Bnumberfield1&resultsSortCategoryName=Revenues&category1= category&category2=category&passKeyword=

Unfortunately, we don't have the revenue sharing figures to go along with this. We can only speculate, but I'd say revenue sharing had a huge role in the Yankees losing $37 million in 2005, while the D-Rays made $27 million (!) in profit. This is exactly the type of absurdity that the "rich" teams are against and wish to purge from MLB.

All I want is for a) the A's to remain in Oakland (or at the very least, in the Bay Area) and b) win. However, I'm a realist, not an idealist. I realize that for a) to happen we need to curry favor with the Old Boys' Club that is the MLB ownership, and for b) to happen we don't necessarily need more revenue, but it certainly would help alot. However, more revenue is needed to get in good standing within MLB, which would eventually lead to a).

We can sit here all day criticizing MLB and the rich owners, but in the end we are all sort of fools to have invested so much emotion into what is, has always been, and will always be a business. Like another poster said, we could all go watch Cal baseball games instead. Yet we are drawn to MLB, and I guess if you've put your heart into it you might as well learn to play by the rules, because we sure aren't changing them.

by OaktownTribesman on Nov 9, 2005 11:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Link corrected

by OaktownTribesman on Nov 9, 2005 11:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

re:

You said:

Yet we are drawn to MLB, and I guess if you've put your heart into it you might as well learn to play by the rules, because we sure aren't changing them.

I believe this is where we disagree. It's my view that money talks, and if Wolff and co. don't make as much money with their closing of view level scheme, they'll open it back up.

And yes, those are the Forbes numbers I was referring to.

About Cal baseball: that actually sounds like a good idea. I'm an Irvine alum myself, and I'd love to watch UCI beat da bears. Plus I like walking around Berzerkly and checking out the coeds.

by As Man on Nov 10, 2005 9:41 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Word 'em up BorninOakland

Thank you. And ditto.

If you want to go see baseball in an uncrowded park, go to a Cal baseball game. No one goes to those games. If you want to see a good baseball team, then get used to a crowded park. You never see Yankees fans or Red Sox fans stretched out in their field-level seats on a Friday night, kicking their legs up on the seats in front of them. You know why? Because those teams' stadiums sell out regularly.

A's fans have been spoiled for years, and I was one of those spoiled fans. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, you couldn't do it, but I remember in 1995, 1996 and 1997 when you could buy a third-deck seat for $2.00 by showing them your student ID and AAA card. Then, once you were in the stadium, you had free reign because nobody was at the game. You could sit in the first row for $2.00... wasn't it great?

NO -- because unfortunately the team stank to high heaven. There was a reason no one was at those games -- we sucked ass.

So, would you rather (1) see a good baseball team or (2) have room to spread out and put your feet up on the chair in front of you? Personally, I'd rather have the stadium packed even if it means I can't get into the game. Why? -- because I care about the A's winning, not about whether I've got enough leg room.

Shit, if the A's win the World Series, Lew Wolff can force me to sit in a fucking highchair for the entire game -- I don't care, just bring that World Series trophy back to the East Bay.

by Uncle Charlie on Nov 8, 2005 5:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

It's not about wanting to be in an uncrowded park.

...you guys have missed my point completely.

I don't mind crowded **NEW* parks. They're really designed for it. AS I said, I saw a game at a sold-out Petco Park, and you never would have known it.....lots of room to move around, and so many concession stands that I was literally at the counter for less than a minute.

My issue is with a crowded *OLD** park like the Coliseum. Dark, narrow passageways, and plumbing and concessions not up to 21st century standards are what I will avoid in the future.

Spreading out the fans alleviated this problem to a large degree. Cramming them all in to 2 decks will massively magnify the Colisuem's shortcomings (which again, is exactly what Wolffe wants).

I'm happy to hear that my safety issues with large crowds at the Coliseum are apparently limited to just me and my family. But regardless, I have to work from past experiences, and my own personal experiences with large crowds in the Coliseum has been terrible.

Not trying to flame or be an ass, but...

Again....

Big crowds in new modern stadiums = GOOD.
Big crowds in old decrepit stadiums = BAD.

That's the whole point of this diary. ;)

`I think every morning I wake up I'm a little dazed. For some reason, I'm used to hitting things with my head.' - Eric Byrnes - 6/25/05

by nodaclu on Nov 8, 2005 5:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

God, will we ever get an Edit button???

Please forgive that mess above.

Also, for clarification, when I make reference to "room to move", I'm referring to the ability to get to concessions or the bathroom fairly easily - not the ability to "put my feet on the seat in front of me".

`I think every morning I wake up I'm a little dazed. For some reason, I'm used to hitting things with my head.' - Eric Byrnes - 6/25/05

by nodaclu on Nov 8, 2005 5:55 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Meeeemmmmoreeeeeees (memories)

"I remember in 1995, 1996 and 1997 when you could buy a third-deck seat for $2.00 by showing them your student ID and AAA card. Then, once you were in the stadium, you had free reign because nobody was at the game. You could sit in the first row for $2.00... wasn't it great?"

Hell yes that was great! Oh, it was beautiful--they had a student discount program and my friends and I kept telling the people at the ticket window we were 12 when we were really 18. I remember one time showing up and some random fan giving me their extra tickets. Another time we ran into--for the first time in years--a line to buy tickets. "This is an A's game, people!" I yelled, thinking that they might then disperse. We struck up conversations with the A's relief pitchers from our seats three rows back of the bullpen. Man, that was awesome.

by rubin sierra on Nov 9, 2005 1:11 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

I won't stop going to games...

I just want to see A's baseball. I do not care if the seats around me are full or if the seats are empty. If I can't stand the lines for food I will pack my own meal. I will go to the bathroom before the game starts and will sit contently as long as my boys are in uniform, on the field, and ready to play. I do not know how I feel about the closure of the upper deck and I won't know until the 2006 season starts. However, I know that I love the A's and I will adapt, so long as I can see my green and gold pitch a near no-hitter gem, make an incredible sliding catch in the outfield, stopping a run at the plate, and a walk-off home run to win the game. Moments like those make everything worth it.

by Mz K on Nov 8, 2005 6:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs